Hello there! My name is Shannon Gugarty. I'm a 22 year old English professional writing major. I've tried three out of four of the English concentration paths, and I'm hoping that this is the one for me. I'm hoping that this project can help me focus on myself as a writer, and how the time period and the social issues around me affect my finished product.
Checkpoint 1: For my text, I am seriously considering The Prioress' Tale. However, there was some brief discussion on Dr. Faustus, and that is literally one of my favorite stories of all time. I love the tropes invoked, the tropes it created, the story it tells, the warnings it gives, etc.. It's not on the readings, but I really would like to do that.
For the Prioress Tale, I intend to read it for the 24th, and start some gatherings on it. I'll start online, and then move to the library. Like, not online online, but on the library website. It's more that I'm kind of worried about exploring the library as it is right now. I don't really know where everything I need would be.
I found some really nice things last year on Miller's Tale, and I'm fairly certain I can find similar things on Prioress' Tale.
Checkpoint 2: Summary of the Prioress’ Tale
The Prioress begins her tale like any religious woman would: asking for help from the Virgin Mary in telling the story properly. After her prayer, she goes straight into the story.
Once upon a time, there was a young boy who lived in a city. Every day, he went to school. But to get to school, he had to cut through the worst part of town: the Jewish part of town. One day, the boy got it in his head that he wanted to learn a song. As he went to school, he began to sing the song.
The Jews were not happy.
The Devil whispered in their ear and demanded that they kill the boy. So they hired an assassin, and the assassin slit the boy’s throat. The boy was dumped in a gutter.
Meanwhile, the boy’s mother, a widow, was frantically searching for her boy. She asked all the Jews if they had seen him, or knew what had happened to him. They all lied and told her they didn’t know what happened. The authorities got involved, and eventually they found him.
The only reason they found him was because he was still singing.
Religious officials were called in. The boy told them that Mary had put a pearl on his tongue, and insisted that he continue singing. He continued to sing. The religious people took the pearl off of his tongue, and he stopped singing. Realizing what was done, the Jews were apprehended and tortured.
After the story, the rest of the pilgrims were thoroughly awed and solemn.
Close Reading of the Prioress’ Tale #1
O mother-maiden! O noble maid-mother! O bush unburned, though burning in the sight of Moses, that through your humility did draw down from the Deity the Spirit that alighted in you; of whose virtue, when He had illumined your heart, was conceived the Father's Wisdom! Help me to tell my tale in your honor. Lady, no wit and no tongue can express your kindness, your nobility, your might, and your great humility. For sometimes, lady, through your benignity, you even go before men's prayers, and procure for us, through your intercession, the light to guide us to your dear Son.
My skill is so weak, O blessed queen, to declare your great worthiness that I cannot sustain the burden; but I proceed like a twelve-month-old-child that can scarce utter any word. Therefore I pray, guide my song which I shall say of you.
This is the second part of the Prioress’ introduction, before she even begins the story. The Prioress seeks the guidance of the Virgin Mary before beginning the story.
To me, at least, the whole section of asking for forgiveness and guidance seems very similar to Chaucer’s retraction. Within the retraction, he states, “if there be anything in it that liketh them, that thereof they thank our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom proceedeth all wit and all goodness”. The Prioress believes that without the skill of Mary, or Jesus, or God Himself, her story would be literal garbage. Chaucer seems to feel the same way.
The Prioress, as a devout woman, understands that she as a mortal has her flaws. She speaks to the holiest human imaginable, a person who understands art and human story telling. Mary, being an intercessor, is critical in her faith as a nun. However, one might even argue that her likening herself to a twelve-month-old-child is a bit extreme. In the prologue of the Canterbury Tales itself, the Prioress is hinted at being of formerly noble birth. Perhaps the likening herself to a twelve-month-old-child is related to repenting for one of her sins.
Asking that Mary guide the story, in and of itself, relates to the story she tells. At the end of the story, it turns out that Mary guided the boy in singing a song in praise of her, and continues to grant him the ability to sing for her after his death. Perhaps, in an indirect way, the Prioress wanted to liken herself to the boy in the story: a worker of miracles.
Close Reading of the Prioress’ Tale #2
In a great city in Asia among the Christian people was a Jewish quarter, maintained by a lord of that country for foul usury and shameful profit, hateful to Christ and His followers.And men could ride or walk all through the streets of it, for it was open at either end. Down beyond the farther part stood a little school of Christian people, in which were many children of Christian blood. Year by year they studied such things as were in use in that country, that is to say, singing and reading, as small children do.
Among these little school-boys was a widow's son, seven years old. On his way to school, day by day, wherever he saw the image of Christ's mother he would kneel down and say his Ave Maria.
This quote is from the beginning of the Prioress’ tale, setting the scene for the entire story. A ‘great’ city has a Jewish section, where interest was charged on loans (perhaps exorbitantly, where if you borrowed a dollar you’d have to pay back two). Near it is a school of Christian people, where students go to pray. One such student is a young boy who reveres the Virgin Mary deeply.
The choice of words here (foul, shameful, hateful) serves to hammer home that the Jews are EVIL. They’re not just people trying to live their lives, oh no. They’re just being nasty little bugs, sitting in this grand city and taking up space. Further, noting that men can ride or walk all through it implies that Jews are not even human, or at least able to be considered men.
Looking more at the word choice, the Christians themselves are depicted as these diminutive people, meek and humble. It’s a little school, with small school children, and the smallest was the widow’s son. This is apparently a ‘great’ city, but it’s painted like the Christians are these meek people just trying to get by, and the Jews are causing so much trouble.
If it’s just one Jewish quarter, and there’s no mention of heathens, one could argue that the rest of the city is, in fact, populated with Christians. Further lines do hint at this possibility. If anything, the Jews are the minority and are just trying to make their way in life. But that’s not how the Prioress is telling it. She’s spinning the story so that they’re the evilest things imaginable.
Close Reading of the Prioress’ Tale #3
From this point on the Jews conspired to drive this innocent one out of the world. To this purpose they hired a murderer who took up a secret place in an alley, and as the child went by, this cursed Jew seized and held him tight, and then cut his throat and cast him into a pit. I must say that they threw him into an outhouse, where these Jews purged their bowels.
O cursed race of modern Herods, what good is your evil intent? Murder will be revealed, truly it will not fail, and chiefly where it touches the honor of God. Blood cries out on your cursed deed. O martyr made strong in virginity (the Prioress cried), now may you sing, following always the white celestial Lamb. St. John, the great evangelist, wrote of you in Patmos, and said that they, those who never knew women in the flesh, go before the Lamb and sing an ever-new song.
This occurs shortly after the small child (let’s call him Tim for the sake of convenience) learns Alma Redemptoris and begins singing it all through the day. He skips merrily through the Jewish quarter to school, singing this song. The Devil himself whispers to the Jews, as they’re keen to his voice, and convinces them to murder the child.
They hire a murderer (because that’s what you do in those days, you don’t just do it yourself, you hire someone to do it for you), and the murderer tosses him into the sewage. The Prioress makes special mention that they literally tossed him into the sewer, as part of her spinning. Shortly after this, she goes into this long railing against these effectively fictional characters about how their crimes will not be forgiven. Chaucer actually pulls away from her to note her crying.
Hiring the murderer implies that the Jews don’t want to get their hands dirty. This is apparently an… undesirable trait. Wouldn’t it have been worse if they themselves killed the boy? Then again, the murderer they hired was a Jew. If that’s the case, couldn’t he have just done it for free? Or do the Jews just not do anything unless gold is passed?
The Prioress’ outcry contains several biblical references. Herod was a king in biblical history, and is the one who called for Christ’s execution. Comparing the Jews to Herod is calling the Jews themselves Christ killers. Conveniently forgetting that Christ was a Jew.
Annotated Bibliography
Friedman, Albert B. "The "Prioress's Tale" and Chaucer's Anti-Semitism." The Chaucer Review 9.2 (1974): 118-29. JSTOR. Web.
The Chaucer Review was established in 1966 at Penn State University. It continues to be published today. Meanwhile, Dr. Friedman passed away in 2006 at the age of 86. Prior to his death, he was a professor emeritus at Claremont Graduate University. The author argues that Chaucer is, in fact, anti-Semitic. Not as a matter of Chaucer was directly hating of the Jews, but more like it was a consequence of his faith. Further, he argues that the anti-Semitism of the Prioress herself is a result of the religion of the time, and elements of her story are meant to be taken satirically. The sources are sound, the points valid, and the author himself is a credible source.
Besserman, Lawrence L. "Ideology, Antisemitism, and Chaucer's Prioress's Tale." The Chaucer Review 36.1 (2001): 48-72. JSTOR. Web.
This article was also published in The Chaucer Review. As discussed above, The Chaucer Review is a very reliable source. Lawrence L. Besserman, meanwhile, is a bit more difficult to find information on. In 1978 he left Harvard University to teach English at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he is now professor emeritus. While at Harvard he taught classes on Anglo-Saxon Poetry. Hebrew University notes that his areas of interest include Chaucer and Middle English poetry. Besserman argues that ideology is an actually good element to criticism and readings of literature, especially in regards to the Prioress’ tale. This source works really well for what I plan on writing, as it helps me look at my chosen text in another way.
LAVEZZO, KATHY. "The Minster And The Privy: Rereading The Prioress's Tale." PMLA: Publications Of The Modern Language Association Of America 126.2 (2011): 363-382. Academic Search Complete. Web.
PMLA is the official publishing journal of MLA, the Modern Language Association. PMLA touts that they have been active since 1884. Kathy Lavesso is a professor of English at the University of Iowa (and is easily confused for Kathleen Lavesso of Natick, who died suddenly in her home). Her area of expertise is medieval literature, and teaches a course on The Canterbury Tales itself. The article itself, while very sound, doesn’t seem to fit my argument. It’s a good springboard for other discussions, but I don’t think it itself would be very helpful for my purposes.
Checkpoint 3:
Annotated Bibliography part 2: Return of the Revenge
Steadman, John M. "The Prioress' Dogs and Benedictine Discipline." Modern Philology. Vol. 54, No. 1 (Aug., 1956), pg. 1-6.
This article was referenced by Albert Friedman. My closest estimate of Steadman's legacy comes from a posting by the Princeton Alumni association, noting that a professor and alum of the same name passed away peacefully in 2011. The journal, however, has been in the running since 1903. The article itself calls into question how well the Prioress kept her faith and discipline. Benedictine discipline instructs that religious figures shouldn't keep any sort of critter in their abbey or religious spaces.
The author's point overall is not to show that she was deliberately ignoring the rules of her order (or even ignorant of them), but more to show that she didn't follow them for the sake of charity. As he writes, "Mme. Eglentyne's affection for her dogs and her concern for a trapped mouse are specifically cited as parallel examples of her charity and mercy." He seems to be arguing that the Prioress is in fact a very kind, thoughtful woman.
This plays a bit into one of the trends I've been seeing in scholarship. That even though the Prioress harbors these hateful thoughts, she's still a decent enough person.
Weinhouse, Linda. "Faith And Fantasy: The Texts Of The Jews." Medieval Encounters 5.3 (1999): 391. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2014.
Linda Weinhouse has apparently published a book, specifically about Jews in this time period and in literature. GoodReads has no data on her book. What I can find of her is on RateMyProfessors, where she's described on a broad scale from "scatterbrained" to "meaning well". But what really matters is what's in her texts.
The article focuses more on what the Jews themselves wrote during this time period, including 'kinots', lamentations about the Jewish victims. The author says, "This is the Jew as Other, the devilish incarnation of all of those traits most hated, most envied, most scorned, and most feared by the Christians of the Middle Ages." in regards to literature written regarding Jews of this time frame.
Of The Prioress's Tale, Weinhouse writes, "In recent years, critics of Chaucer's Prioress's Tale have implicitly both exonerated the poet and neutralized the anti-Semitism of the tale by duly noting the prevalence of anti-Semitism in European history." This is something I noted in my own adventures into researching The Prioress's Tale. Just because it was the norm of the time doesn't mean it was right.
Fenn, Jessica. "Apostrophe, Devotion, And Anti-Semitism: Rhetorical Community In The Prioress's Prologue And Tale." Studies In Philology 110.3 (2013): 432-458. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
Jessica Fenn is a very common name. Literally anything I could find was a link to Facebook searching for her (with a lot of results), or this one article. I don't know jack diddly squat about her.
Right away, Fenn makes it clear she wants to focus on the nature of the story itself: an oral tale. She writes, "The Prioress's words stand as shared speech within the fiction of the Canterbury Tales, spoken orally by the Prioress and later reported by the Chaucer pilgrim, who repeats all of the tales he hears on the way to Canterbury, renarrating both the Prioress's story and the pilgrims' response." She goes on to focus on the importance of "shared speech" in the narrative, and comes to my key point: whether Chaucer himself was anti-Semitic, or was he writing a character that felt that way herself. She then goes back to "shared speech", which... isn't exactly well explained.
I would love to learn more about this "shared speech" phenomenon. I would love to learn what it means, in relating to Chaucer. From what I can gather, it's kind of like a big game of telephone. You start saying "Jenna is cute as a button", but then someone doesn't hear it right, or changes the message itself to suit their needs. Suddenly, the saying isn't "Jenna is cute as a button", but instead "The button is very cute." I guess.
I'm tempted to question the whole thing, based on the lack of clarity and my inability to find anything about Jessica Fenn. But she does make some DAMN good points.
A Reflection on Trends in Scholarship
Do you know the story of Schrodinger’s cat?
Schrodinger put a cat in a box with some kind of deadly poison. He asked the world, “Is the cat dead or alive?” You wouldn’t know until you opened the box whether the cat had licked up the poison or it had spilled or something, or if the cat was just fine.
Aside from animal cruelty, the issue with Chaucer is the same. Was Chaucer a Jew hater? Or did he just WRITE a Jew hater? Or was he both a Jew hater AND a Jew hater writer? OR was he not a Jew hater, but he wrote a Jew hater as a sort of parody of his modern time period?
Schrodinger’s cat. Chaucer’s anti-Semitism. They go hand in horrible, awful person hand.
Many scholars handwave it in a way. They argue that it’s just how things WERE back then. Just how in the 40s, it was the norm to call black people words that I won’t repeat here, or how in the past the Irish weren’t allowed to work. That’s just how things were back then. That’s how everything was. The Jew was a scary thing. The Jew was the boogeyman, hiding under your bed, ready to steal you away. The Jew was a monster who would kill you for singing your praises to Mary.
But then there’s the counterpoint. Chaucer was not writing his own viewpoints. He was putting himself into another’s shoes. He was writing from the perspective of a Prioress, a devout follower of Christianity. As Erin once said in class, “Chaucer is a troll.” Actual quote.
The question goes back and forth. Was Chaucer really anti-Semitic? Was he writing an anti-Semitic character, but not one himself? Is the cat dead? Is the cat alive?
Chaucer’s anti-Semitism. Schrodinger’s cat. They go hand in horrible, awful person hand.
A Query
I have so many questions. So many questions that relate so very little to my research. Here’s a short list:
How BIG was this city?
How hard was it for a little kid to just walk around the Jewish quarter?
Why did either the Jews make their quarter so close to a Christian school, or the Christian school build itself near the Jewish quarter?
Are Jews devil whisperers?
WHY AM I CONSIDERING LOOKING AT TWILIGHT AS A SOURCE OF INSPIRATION???
So many questions. Too many. My biggest factor, though, is really trying to argue one way or another whether Chaucer’s anti-Semitism is a reflection of himself or just a reflection of a character, or even of the world around him.
As a writer, I’m aware that literature doesn’t exist in a vacuum. My writing is influenced by the events of my life, my political and religious beliefs, my moods, the music I listen to while I write… Every writer is the same, in a way. And it’s not even that we’re constantly reflecting what’s happening in our lives. Sometimes, you make the operative decision to write things you don’t believe in. The question is, though, how much of Chaucer’s life reflects on his writing? How much of what he’s written comes from his own heart and beliefs? How much of it is his own invention?
Checkpoint 1: For my text, I am seriously considering The Prioress' Tale. However, there was some brief discussion on Dr. Faustus, and that is literally one of my favorite stories of all time. I love the tropes invoked, the tropes it created, the story it tells, the warnings it gives, etc.. It's not on the readings, but I really would like to do that.
For the Prioress Tale, I intend to read it for the 24th, and start some gatherings on it. I'll start online, and then move to the library. Like, not online online, but on the library website. It's more that I'm kind of worried about exploring the library as it is right now. I don't really know where everything I need would be.
I found some really nice things last year on Miller's Tale, and I'm fairly certain I can find similar things on Prioress' Tale.
Checkpoint 2:
Summary of the Prioress’ Tale
The Prioress begins her tale like any religious woman would: asking for help from the Virgin Mary in telling the story properly. After her prayer, she goes straight into the story.
Once upon a time, there was a young boy who lived in a city. Every day, he went to school. But to get to school, he had to cut through the worst part of town: the Jewish part of town. One day, the boy got it in his head that he wanted to learn a song. As he went to school, he began to sing the song.
The Jews were not happy.
The Devil whispered in their ear and demanded that they kill the boy. So they hired an assassin, and the assassin slit the boy’s throat. The boy was dumped in a gutter.
Meanwhile, the boy’s mother, a widow, was frantically searching for her boy. She asked all the Jews if they had seen him, or knew what had happened to him. They all lied and told her they didn’t know what happened. The authorities got involved, and eventually they found him.
The only reason they found him was because he was still singing.
Religious officials were called in. The boy told them that Mary had put a pearl on his tongue, and insisted that he continue singing. He continued to sing. The religious people took the pearl off of his tongue, and he stopped singing. Realizing what was done, the Jews were apprehended and tortured.
After the story, the rest of the pilgrims were thoroughly awed and solemn.
Close Reading of the Prioress’ Tale #1
O mother-maiden! O noble maid-mother! O bush unburned, though burning in the sight of Moses, that through your humility did draw down from the Deity the Spirit that alighted in you; of whose virtue, when He had illumined your heart, was conceived the Father's Wisdom! Help me to tell my tale in your honor. Lady, no wit and no tongue can express your kindness, your nobility, your might, and your great humility. For sometimes, lady, through your benignity, you even go before men's prayers, and procure for us, through your intercession, the light to guide us to your dear Son.
My skill is so weak, O blessed queen, to declare your great worthiness that I cannot sustain the burden; but I proceed like a twelve-month-old-child that can scarce utter any word. Therefore I pray, guide my song which I shall say of you.
This is the second part of the Prioress’ introduction, before she even begins the story. The Prioress seeks the guidance of the Virgin Mary before beginning the story.
To me, at least, the whole section of asking for forgiveness and guidance seems very similar to Chaucer’s retraction. Within the retraction, he states, “if there be anything in it that liketh them, that thereof they thank our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom proceedeth all wit and all goodness”. The Prioress believes that without the skill of Mary, or Jesus, or God Himself, her story would be literal garbage. Chaucer seems to feel the same way.
The Prioress, as a devout woman, understands that she as a mortal has her flaws. She speaks to the holiest human imaginable, a person who understands art and human story telling. Mary, being an intercessor, is critical in her faith as a nun. However, one might even argue that her likening herself to a twelve-month-old-child is a bit extreme. In the prologue of the Canterbury Tales itself, the Prioress is hinted at being of formerly noble birth. Perhaps the likening herself to a twelve-month-old-child is related to repenting for one of her sins.
Asking that Mary guide the story, in and of itself, relates to the story she tells. At the end of the story, it turns out that Mary guided the boy in singing a song in praise of her, and continues to grant him the ability to sing for her after his death. Perhaps, in an indirect way, the Prioress wanted to liken herself to the boy in the story: a worker of miracles.
Close Reading of the Prioress’ Tale #2
In a great city in Asia among the Christian people was a Jewish quarter, maintained by a lord of that country for foul usury and shameful profit, hateful to Christ and His followers. And men could ride or walk all through the streets of it, for it was open at either end. Down beyond the farther part stood a little school of Christian people, in which were many children of Christian blood. Year by year they studied such things as were in use in that country, that is to say, singing and reading, as small children do.
Among these little school-boys was a widow's son, seven years old. On his way to school, day by day, wherever he saw the image of Christ's mother he would kneel down and say his Ave Maria.
This quote is from the beginning of the Prioress’ tale, setting the scene for the entire story. A ‘great’ city has a Jewish section, where interest was charged on loans (perhaps exorbitantly, where if you borrowed a dollar you’d have to pay back two). Near it is a school of Christian people, where students go to pray. One such student is a young boy who reveres the Virgin Mary deeply.
The choice of words here (foul, shameful, hateful) serves to hammer home that the Jews are EVIL. They’re not just people trying to live their lives, oh no. They’re just being nasty little bugs, sitting in this grand city and taking up space. Further, noting that men can ride or walk all through it implies that Jews are not even human, or at least able to be considered men.
Looking more at the word choice, the Christians themselves are depicted as these diminutive people, meek and humble. It’s a little school, with small school children, and the smallest was the widow’s son. This is apparently a ‘great’ city, but it’s painted like the Christians are these meek people just trying to get by, and the Jews are causing so much trouble.
If it’s just one Jewish quarter, and there’s no mention of heathens, one could argue that the rest of the city is, in fact, populated with Christians. Further lines do hint at this possibility. If anything, the Jews are the minority and are just trying to make their way in life. But that’s not how the Prioress is telling it. She’s spinning the story so that they’re the evilest things imaginable.
Close Reading of the Prioress’ Tale #3
From this point on the Jews conspired to drive this innocent one out of the world. To this purpose they hired a murderer who took up a secret place in an alley, and as the child went by, this cursed Jew seized and held him tight, and then cut his throat and cast him into a pit. I must say that they threw him into an outhouse, where these Jews purged their bowels.
O cursed race of modern Herods, what good is your evil intent? Murder will be revealed, truly it will not fail, and chiefly where it touches the honor of God. Blood cries out on your cursed deed. O martyr made strong in virginity (the Prioress cried), now may you sing, following always the white celestial Lamb. St. John, the great evangelist, wrote of you in Patmos, and said that they, those who never knew women in the flesh, go before the Lamb and sing an ever-new song.
This occurs shortly after the small child (let’s call him Tim for the sake of convenience) learns Alma Redemptoris and begins singing it all through the day. He skips merrily through the Jewish quarter to school, singing this song. The Devil himself whispers to the Jews, as they’re keen to his voice, and convinces them to murder the child.
They hire a murderer (because that’s what you do in those days, you don’t just do it yourself, you hire someone to do it for you), and the murderer tosses him into the sewage. The Prioress makes special mention that they literally tossed him into the sewer, as part of her spinning. Shortly after this, she goes into this long railing against these effectively fictional characters about how their crimes will not be forgiven. Chaucer actually pulls away from her to note her crying.
Hiring the murderer implies that the Jews don’t want to get their hands dirty. This is apparently an… undesirable trait. Wouldn’t it have been worse if they themselves killed the boy? Then again, the murderer they hired was a Jew. If that’s the case, couldn’t he have just done it for free? Or do the Jews just not do anything unless gold is passed?
The Prioress’ outcry contains several biblical references. Herod was a king in biblical history, and is the one who called for Christ’s execution. Comparing the Jews to Herod is calling the Jews themselves Christ killers. Conveniently forgetting that Christ was a Jew.
Annotated Bibliography
Friedman, Albert B. "The "Prioress's Tale" and Chaucer's Anti-Semitism." The Chaucer Review 9.2 (1974): 118-29. JSTOR. Web.
The Chaucer Review was established in 1966 at Penn State University. It continues to be published today. Meanwhile, Dr. Friedman passed away in 2006 at the age of 86. Prior to his death, he was a professor emeritus at Claremont Graduate University. The author argues that Chaucer is, in fact, anti-Semitic. Not as a matter of Chaucer was directly hating of the Jews, but more like it was a consequence of his faith. Further, he argues that the anti-Semitism of the Prioress herself is a result of the religion of the time, and elements of her story are meant to be taken satirically. The sources are sound, the points valid, and the author himself is a credible source.
Besserman, Lawrence L. "Ideology, Antisemitism, and Chaucer's Prioress's Tale." The Chaucer Review 36.1 (2001): 48-72. JSTOR. Web.
This article was also published in The Chaucer Review. As discussed above, The Chaucer Review is a very reliable source. Lawrence L. Besserman, meanwhile, is a bit more difficult to find information on. In 1978 he left Harvard University to teach English at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he is now professor emeritus. While at Harvard he taught classes on Anglo-Saxon Poetry. Hebrew University notes that his areas of interest include Chaucer and Middle English poetry. Besserman argues that ideology is an actually good element to criticism and readings of literature, especially in regards to the Prioress’ tale. This source works really well for what I plan on writing, as it helps me look at my chosen text in another way.
LAVEZZO, KATHY. "The Minster And The Privy: Rereading The Prioress's Tale." PMLA: Publications Of The Modern Language Association Of America 126.2 (2011): 363-382. Academic Search Complete. Web.
PMLA is the official publishing journal of MLA, the Modern Language Association. PMLA touts that they have been active since 1884. Kathy Lavesso is a professor of English at the University of Iowa (and is easily confused for Kathleen Lavesso of Natick, who died suddenly in her home). Her area of expertise is medieval literature, and teaches a course on The Canterbury Tales itself. The article itself, while very sound, doesn’t seem to fit my argument. It’s a good springboard for other discussions, but I don’t think it itself would be very helpful for my purposes.
Checkpoint 3:
Annotated Bibliography part 2: Return of the Revenge
Steadman, John M. "The Prioress' Dogs and Benedictine Discipline." Modern Philology. Vol. 54, No. 1 (Aug., 1956), pg. 1-6.
This article was referenced by Albert Friedman. My closest estimate of Steadman's legacy comes from a posting by the Princeton Alumni association, noting that a professor and alum of the same name passed away peacefully in 2011. The journal, however, has been in the running since 1903. The article itself calls into question how well the Prioress kept her faith and discipline. Benedictine discipline instructs that religious figures shouldn't keep any sort of critter in their abbey or religious spaces.
The author's point overall is not to show that she was deliberately ignoring the rules of her order (or even ignorant of them), but more to show that she didn't follow them for the sake of charity. As he writes, "Mme. Eglentyne's affection for her dogs and her concern for a trapped mouse are specifically cited as parallel examples of her charity and mercy." He seems to be arguing that the Prioress is in fact a very kind, thoughtful woman.
This plays a bit into one of the trends I've been seeing in scholarship. That even though the Prioress harbors these hateful thoughts, she's still a decent enough person.
Weinhouse, Linda. "Faith And Fantasy: The Texts Of The Jews." Medieval Encounters 5.3 (1999): 391. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Nov. 2014.
Linda Weinhouse has apparently published a book, specifically about Jews in this time period and in literature. GoodReads has no data on her book. What I can find of her is on RateMyProfessors, where she's described on a broad scale from "scatterbrained" to "meaning well". But what really matters is what's in her texts.
The article focuses more on what the Jews themselves wrote during this time period, including 'kinots', lamentations about the Jewish victims. The author says, "This is the Jew as Other, the devilish incarnation of all of those traits most hated, most envied, most scorned, and most feared by the Christians of the Middle Ages." in regards to literature written regarding Jews of this time frame.
Of The Prioress's Tale, Weinhouse writes, "In recent years, critics of Chaucer's Prioress's Tale have implicitly both exonerated the poet and neutralized the anti-Semitism of the tale by duly noting the prevalence of anti-Semitism in European history." This is something I noted in my own adventures into researching The Prioress's Tale. Just because it was the norm of the time doesn't mean it was right.
Fenn, Jessica. "Apostrophe, Devotion, And Anti-Semitism: Rhetorical Community In The Prioress's Prologue And Tale." Studies In Philology 110.3 (2013): 432-458. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.
Jessica Fenn is a very common name. Literally anything I could find was a link to Facebook searching for her (with a lot of results), or this one article. I don't know jack diddly squat about her.
Right away, Fenn makes it clear she wants to focus on the nature of the story itself: an oral tale. She writes, "The Prioress's words stand as shared speech within the fiction of the Canterbury Tales, spoken orally by the Prioress and later reported by the Chaucer pilgrim, who repeats all of the tales he hears on the way to Canterbury, renarrating both the Prioress's story and the pilgrims' response." She goes on to focus on the importance of "shared speech" in the narrative, and comes to my key point: whether Chaucer himself was anti-Semitic, or was he writing a character that felt that way herself. She then goes back to "shared speech", which... isn't exactly well explained.
I would love to learn more about this "shared speech" phenomenon. I would love to learn what it means, in relating to Chaucer. From what I can gather, it's kind of like a big game of telephone. You start saying "Jenna is cute as a button", but then someone doesn't hear it right, or changes the message itself to suit their needs. Suddenly, the saying isn't "Jenna is cute as a button", but instead "The button is very cute." I guess.
I'm tempted to question the whole thing, based on the lack of clarity and my inability to find anything about Jessica Fenn. But she does make some DAMN good points.
A Reflection on Trends in Scholarship
Do you know the story of Schrodinger’s cat?
Schrodinger put a cat in a box with some kind of deadly poison. He asked the world, “Is the cat dead or alive?” You wouldn’t know until you opened the box whether the cat had licked up the poison or it had spilled or something, or if the cat was just fine.
Aside from animal cruelty, the issue with Chaucer is the same. Was Chaucer a Jew hater? Or did he just WRITE a Jew hater? Or was he both a Jew hater AND a Jew hater writer? OR was he not a Jew hater, but he wrote a Jew hater as a sort of parody of his modern time period?
Schrodinger’s cat. Chaucer’s anti-Semitism. They go hand in horrible, awful person hand.
Many scholars handwave it in a way. They argue that it’s just how things WERE back then. Just how in the 40s, it was the norm to call black people words that I won’t repeat here, or how in the past the Irish weren’t allowed to work. That’s just how things were back then. That’s how everything was. The Jew was a scary thing. The Jew was the boogeyman, hiding under your bed, ready to steal you away. The Jew was a monster who would kill you for singing your praises to Mary.
But then there’s the counterpoint. Chaucer was not writing his own viewpoints. He was putting himself into another’s shoes. He was writing from the perspective of a Prioress, a devout follower of Christianity. As Erin once said in class, “Chaucer is a troll.” Actual quote.
The question goes back and forth. Was Chaucer really anti-Semitic? Was he writing an anti-Semitic character, but not one himself? Is the cat dead? Is the cat alive?
Chaucer’s anti-Semitism. Schrodinger’s cat. They go hand in horrible, awful person hand.
A Query
I have so many questions. So many questions that relate so very little to my research. Here’s a short list:
- How BIG was this city?
- How hard was it for a little kid to just walk around the Jewish quarter?
- Why did either the Jews make their quarter so close to a Christian school, or the Christian school build itself near the Jewish quarter?
- Are Jews devil whisperers?
- WHY AM I CONSIDERING LOOKING AT TWILIGHT AS A SOURCE OF INSPIRATION???
So many questions. Too many. My biggest factor, though, is really trying to argue one way or another whether Chaucer’s anti-Semitism is a reflection of himself or just a reflection of a character, or even of the world around him.As a writer, I’m aware that literature doesn’t exist in a vacuum. My writing is influenced by the events of my life, my political and religious beliefs, my moods, the music I listen to while I write… Every writer is the same, in a way. And it’s not even that we’re constantly reflecting what’s happening in our lives. Sometimes, you make the operative decision to write things you don’t believe in. The question is, though, how much of Chaucer’s life reflects on his writing? How much of what he’s written comes from his own heart and beliefs? How much of it is his own invention?
Checkpoint 4: